Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing
> is removing functionality we might want someday. It's not hard to
> imagine pgstattuple or VACUUM or other maintenance operations wanting
> to look at killed index entries.
I suggested it not for performance, but for simplicity of code. So if we
still need it, I agree to leave it.
Moreover, LP_DELETEed tuples might be useful for Bitmap NOT And/Or join,
not only maintenance operations. Union-side of bitmap should not contain
LP_DELETEed tuples, and Except-side should do.
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: ITAGAKI Takahiro||Date: 2006-02-13 02:43:17|
|Subject: Re: Free WAL caches on switching segments|
|Previous:||From: Daniel Verite||Date: 2006-02-13 02:26:17|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Number format problem|